1. Field of this Present Embodiment                This present embodiment relates in general to an article of furniture such as an office chair having a seat, a seatback, and a base with coaster wheels. The user can use this present embodiment for the home, office, or such. This embodiment further includes means for the user to exercise or stretch whereby allowing the user a fast, safe, and convenient means and method of seating, stretching, and exercising.        
2. Prior Art
By Patent Numbers:    US 2006/0116259 A1 June 2006 Smith 482/130 CHAIR WITH EXERCISE APPARATUS
The disadvantage of Smith's patent application '259 for his chair is that the base has no means to secure human feet. Smith's patent application '259 has an optional hub attachable footrest assembly that has retracting means that may also be used for leg press exercises. Smith's patent application '259 does not allow for the backrest itself to hinge in two to allow the user a broader range of abdominal exercises. Smith's patent application '259 does not allow for the backrest to be completely lowered to rest by touching the floor.    U.S. Pat. No. 7,090,303 B2 August 2006 Kropa 297/466 REHABILITATION TRAINING AND EXERCISE CHAIR
The disadvantage of Kropa's patent '303 for his reverse seated chair is that the foot extensions attached to the base are intended for isometric exercises. Although the foot extensions can allow the user to perform isometric abdomen exercises by allowing the user to push forward on the cushioned front support which rests against the user's abdomen, the foot extensions will not secure the user if the user attempts to lean back. The foot extensions are located too far out on each side of the base forcing the user's feet to be spread too far apart. If user's feet and knees are not aligned in a vertical manner, the user's knees will experience a torque when the user attempts to lean back to support their weight. This will cause severe stresses and damage to the user's knees when the user attempts to lean back and support their weight. The foot extensions are suitable for placing only the toes beneath and therefore the user's total weight will be forced on just the toes. The total weight of the user applied on just a small portion of the user's toes will definitely cause pain. Additionally, Kropa's chair does not have an adequate seat front support to apply force on the back of the user's knee to stabilize the user when the user leans back. Even if the foot extensions were able to secure the user's feet, the user will fall backwards if the user attempts to perform abdominal exercises by leaning back because the user's feet are forced too far apart and the back of the user's knee have no support due to the round seat design and the fact that the foot extensions are placed outside of the seat area. If the user attempts to use the abductor extensions to engage the outer thigh to keep them from falling, the user's knee joints will be under torque as stated above which will cause injuries. Additionally, Kropa's patent for his chair '303 does not have a backrest to allow the user to sit comfortably for any extended period of time.    US 2008/0254955 October 2008 Mongelluzzo 482/138 OFFICE AND DESK EXERCISE CHAIR SYSTEM
The disadvantage of Mongelluzzo's patent '955 is that it has a leg rest attached to a wheeled base which can be used to rest the user's legs or to perform leg exercises by letting the user push down against the leg rests. The leg rest can be locked in position to allow the user to push against the leg rest and perform twist and swivel motions to work the torso. Mongelluzzo's patent '955 has no means of securing human user's feet. Mongelluzzo's patent '955 requires a base support with “at least about five supports 109”. Mongelluzzo's patent '955 for his chair does not allow the backrest to recline completely and touch the floor. Also, Mongelluzzo's chair patent '955 does not allow the backrest itself to hinge in two to allow the user a broader range of abdominal exercises.    U.S. Pat. No. 5,110,121 May 1992 Foster 482/137 EXERCISE CHAIR FOR THE LOWER BACK
The disadvantage of Foster's patent '121 for his chair that exercises the lumbar by deploying pelvic stabilizers is that the pelvic stabilizers have to be laboriously manipulated from the armrest before any exercise can be performed. Foster's '121 chair has no apparatus to lock the user's feet and stabilize the user's legs. Foster's chair has no means or method of exercising or stretching the abdomen or legs. Foster's '121 chair must be laboriously manipulated by the user to hold the user's pelvis in place. Foster's '121 chair only allows for 80° of exercise movement and Foster's '121 lumbar support pads cannot be completely moved from the seated user's path, which limits the user's range of motion. Foster's '121 chair requires “a plurality of laterally extending legs, at least a pair of said legs”. Foster's '121 chair has lumbar supports pads but no backrest making Foster's '121 chair unable to workout the abdomen. Additionally, the lumbar support pads on Foster's chair '121 prevent the user from leaning fully back restricting the user from fully exercising their abdomen.    U.S. Pat. No. 5,695,250 December 1997 Lin 297/353 CHAIR WITH SWIVEL SEAT AND BACKREST
The disadvantage of Lin patent '250 is that it provides a chair with a swivel seat and backrest that limits exercise to only the user's lumbar and does not have a means or a method for the user to lean back to perform abdominal exercises. The user can simply lean forward on an ordinary seat and rotate their upper body to get the same result as Lin's '250 chair making the exercises function on Lin's '250 chair obsolete. Lin's '250 chair has no apparatus to lock the user's feet in place when the user performs exercises. Lin's chair has no means or method of exercising or stretching the legs or abdominal. Lin's chair works on a limited swivel motion and not a lean motion. Also, Lin's '250 chair patent does not allow the backrest itself to hinge in two to allow the user a broader range of abdominal exercises. Lin's '250 chair does not allow the backrest to be lowered.    U.S. Pat. No. 5,967,610 October 1999 Lin 297/340 CHAIR WITH SWIVEL SEAT AND BACKREST
The disadvantage of Lin's patent '610 is that it is a continuation of his old patent '250 with the addition of L shaped handles to his chair. The addition of L shaped handles to Lin '250 does not broaden the operation of Lin's '610 chair. The L shaped handles only simplify the operation of the chair to the user, and therefore does not broaden the scope of Lin's '610 chair. The addition of the L shaped handles to Lin's '250 also adds a strangely awkward look to the chair. Lin's '610 chair patent does not allow the backrest itself to hinge in two or allow the backrest to be lowered to allow the user a broader range of abdominal exercises.    U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,633 September 1991 Rice 272/144 OFFICE CHAIR WITH OCCASIONAL EXERCISE CAPABILITY
The foot handles of Rice's patent '633 exercise the calf muscles of the legs and thighs but does not exercise the abdominal muscles. Rice's patent '633 shows that the foot handles cannot be locked in place. Rice '633 has no means or method of lowering, reclining, or moving the seatback from the user's way so that the user can perform abdominal exercises. Rice '633 has no apparatus to stabilize the user by locking the user's feet. Rice '633 does not have the means or a method for a user to lean back and perform abdominal exercises. Rice '633 patent has no means or method of exercising or stretching the abdomen. Rice's patent '633 has foot handles that are attached to the seat underside and not to the base making the seat unstable when the foot handles are in use. Rice's patent '633 does not have a stabilizing method for a user to lean back and perform exercises or stretches. Also, Rice's patent '633 for his chair does not allow the backrest itself to hinge in two to allow the user a broader range of abdominal exercises. Rice's patent '633 does not allow for the backrest to be lowered.